imperatrix Vs. Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji - Court Judgment
|Judge||Michael Westropp, C.J. and ;Melvill, J.|
|Respondent||Bhawani BIn Panduji and Sakharam BIn Khundoji|
criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), section 263, clauses 4 and 5 - dissent of court from verdict of jurors. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of..........did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the high.....
1. This case depends upon the 4th and 5th clauses of Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These clauses are not very clearly drawn; but taking them together, as we are bound to do, in order to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature, we think that the 'dissent,' spoken of in the 4th clause, must be such a complete dissent as to lead the Judge to consider it necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. There being no such complete dissent in this case, we think that the conviction and sentence must stand. This decision is not in conflict with our decision in Imperatrix v. Hari Ghanu, where we held that Government might appeal against an acquittal by a jury where the Judge differed from the jury, but did not consider it necessary for the ends of justice to refer the case to the High Court.